Houghton Library, Harvard University

In an 1820 letter to his son, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe stated that English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge was hard at work translating Goethe’s closet drama Faust. Coleridge and his friends, however, openly expressed dislike for the German poet, and in 1834, Coleridge wrote, “I need not tell you that I never put pen to paper as a translator of Faust.” No contemporary translation of the work contains Coleridge’s name, and many scholars have puzzled over the possible existence of this translation.

A recent critical edition of Faustus, reviewed in February in the Times Literary Supplement, claims to have solved the mystery. In 1814, Coleridge was approached by Byron’s publisher, John Murray, to translate Faust. He worked at the translation for a little over a month, and then abandoned the project out of frustration. Following the publication of two very successful editions of the work in 1820, the editors surmise, Coleridge must have been inspired to take up the project again. The 1821 edition matches his poetic style very closely, however, it was published anonymously.

Soon after this review appeared in TLS, various reactions appeared from scholars arguing against the attribution, claiming it to be based too much on conjecture. (For more on the arguments of both sides, the “Friends of Coleridge” website has collected a list of reviews and responses to the new translation.) Dr. James Engell, Gurney Professor of English and Professor of Comparative Literature at Harvard, believes the following: “My opinion is that the verse in it–most of it though not perhaps all of it–is very likely [Coleridge’s], a strong attribution by Burwick and McKusick. The prose summaries of the untranslated parts are probably not by [Coleridge], nor the prose introduction, though he may have directed the prose introduction’s sense of delicate subjects, tastes of the two countries, etc.”

In the midst of this scholarly fervor, we acquired a copy of the contested 1821 translation. The edition includes twenty-six plates engraved by Henry Moses after Friedrich August Moritz Retzsch’s well-known ‘outlines’. (The idea for this edition in the first place came from the successful 1820 publication of the plates by themselves.)

f*EC8.C6795.821f. Purchased with the Norton Perkins Memorial Fund and the Amy Lowell Trust. Images may not be reproduced without permission.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

One Response to “Faust pas”

It remains somewhat ironic that one fundamental “primary source” with regard to the Faust translation controversy is Samuel Taylor Coleridge himself who denies it! [“Table Talk”, February 16, 1833]. In view of that known denial, the attempt seems to be to almost ‘force’ the translation onto Coleridge when in fact his alleged authorship of the Faust translation has not been definitively established and remains a matter of continued debate whether such debate is among Coleridge scholars or simply avid readers and ardent admirers of Coleridge.

In a piece written by Jennifer Howard [“The Chronicle Review”, 3-28-08 and titled, “A Question of Evidence, or a Leap of Faith?”], Professor McKusick [co-author along with Professor Burwick] is quoted as saying, “We would like for this ‘hypothesis’ [** emphasis mine] to be tested in the fire of literary debate but I think we have the evidence in the end for this to come out that it’s by Coleridge.” Ahh! Hypothesis! Indeed! And the prerogative of virtually anyone to advance with their supporting evidence but ‘still’ remaining within the realm of a hypothesis versus a rather clear statement [“translated by Samuel Taylor Coleridge”] of purported definitive fact! There is a difference. A big one!

The 2007 Burwick/McKusick book states that the Faust material of Goethe is, in the very title of the tome, “translated by Samuel Taylor Coleridge” but which has NOT been definitively established other than in the ‘hypothesis’ [read: conjectured opinion] of the authors. Hence the continued controversy on the matter! The translation issue as to author remains an open question and by no means is it “solved” which, I would suggest, the global controversy itself amply attests! Coleridge’s own 1833 denial of same notwithstanding. Assorted, shall we say, pro-translator theory internet rhetoric of “he lied” or its diplomatic brother, viz., “Coleridge was quite possibly being less than candid” [read: lying] is not proof, it’s rank conjecture!